"The US is imposing a ban on arms sales to Venezuela.
The US state department said the decision was taken because of what it said was Venezuela’s lack of support for counter-terrorism efforts."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4774475.stm
We’re banning weapons exports not because they’re terrorists, but because they’re not on board with our policies on terror?
All we’re doing is hamstringing US industry here, and to my mind looking like a bunch of bullies.
Exactly how much were US arms sales to Venezuela last year? This may just be symbolic.
Have to agree. My guess is its just a symbolic gesture to show that the US is ‘displeased’ with Venezuela (in case they had missed it I suppose). Means very little really either way.
-XT
Just today in the UK, Chavez called Bush “the biggest perpetrator of genocide the world has known”, so I’m not surprised. I’m no fan of the guy, but, er… I suspect Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are a trifle higher up the list.
That’s okay, Bush isn’t selling weapons to them, either.
Didn’t Chavez say he supported Farc in neighbouring Colombia? Which pretty much rails him against Uribe? A US ally?
Mr. Chavez is not a rubber-stamper of US policies, but he is the democratically elected leader of his country. Does our drive to spread democracy apply only to countries occupied by US troops?
Just because he’s democratically elected doesn’t mean he acts democratic, there’s the difference.
Please tell us how one “acts democratic”. I’m interested in what “democratic” means to folks these days.
Wasn’t Saddam “democratically elected”?
It means rule of law, respect of independent institutions, and the ability to oppose the government without losing your job, getting killed etc, all run of the mill stuff.
No? What’s the point of this question? He succeeded his cousin Bakr in running the country, and royally fucked it up when in charge.
Does that obligate us to sell weapons to Venezuela? Russia has a democratically elected government. So does Iran. Should we sell weapons to them?
There’s no obligation to sell anything to anybody at any time.
The Guardian Council disqualified over 1000 candidates for the Iranian election, are you sure it’s democratic?
Reguardless of whether or not Iraq or anyone has democratic elections, it doesn’t compell us to sell them weapons. And the converse is true…nothing prevents us from selling weapons to non-Democratic nations who we reguard as either friendly or simply necessary.
I’m really not sure where this OP is going. Why exactly SHOULD the US sell weapons to an obviously hostile (to the US) nation? Simply because they are a supposed democracy?
-XT
That SHOULD have been 'whether or not IRAN has democratic elections. :smack:
-XT
I can’t remember if he did. I think what the real issue is that Chavez doesn’t make any effort to catch the FARC when they cross the border to evade the Colombian military. But you know, I’ve crossed that border myself, and if I had limited resources, I probably wouldn’t go running around after them either, as long as they didn’t cause my country any problems. I’d be more concerned with foreign-aided coups, oil, and things like that. But they did catch some FARC in Venezuela recently (“officially” by Colombian army, but they could never have done it without U.S. aid).
Few people seem to be aware that Colombia is the THIRD largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (after Isreal and Egypt, but I suppose Iraq will put them in fourth place). There’s a book (Killing Pablo, or something like that (author Mark Bowden), which shows how much the Colombian military needs U.S. military assistance to accomplish anything at all, whether it be with narcos or guerillas. The money is, by legislation, supposed to go to the “War on Drugs.” But the equipment and training go towards anything the Colombian military does, in effect. In any case, any group in Colombia that is not pro-U.S. can just be called terrorists. So if FARC cross the border into Venezuela, that’s one more reason to get rid of Chavez.
But Chavez can get arms from other sources quite easily, so the OP’s question doesn’t concern him. Besides, the only real military threat that Venezuela has would either be a ridiculous Bay of Pigs type thing by way of the U.S., or a border dispute with Colombia, which is highly unlikely. The Colombian people have enough combat within their own country–they’d never put up with such a thing.
It certainly doesn’t help that Chavez likes to make provocative statements about Bush and his policies. But that isn’t the issue. The real issue is that rumors are going around that Venezuela has vastly much more oil than people originally thought, and Chavez just might throw a spanner into the works of OPEC.
And you have to admit that it’s pretty amusing when a third world country offers aid to “first world” countries (oil to New Orleans and Europe). Apparently Chavez has done enough for the majority of Venezuelans (medical aid and housing) to maintain his popularity—the middle class, who ironically are most of the oil industry managers, couldn’t pull off the coup—and so he says exaggerated and provocative things, more so, in my opinion, for his image within his own country, than for the international community.
Meanwhile, Uribe keeps on tap dancing for the U.S.
One interesting bit from the cite in the OP:
I was wondering about that, With the recent closing of the Winchester plant in the USA and the weapons to be manufactured elsewhere (like virtually everything else) I wondered if even the bit of calling them “American weapons” was symbolic also.
To answer my own question:
Defense and Commerce department records show that in 2002, Washington issued licenses to export to Venezuela more than 7,000 pistols and rifles and 22 million rounds of ammunition, as well as riot-control equipment and interrogator sets. In 2003, it issued licenses for $43 million in military equipment sales, including a million cartridges, 1,000 pistols, and ammunition. Last year it issued $24.6 million in licenses, including $425,000 in tear gas. This year, the US has approved export licenses for police gear, restraint devices such as leg irons, stun gun-type arms and chemical agents. —Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 2005
It seems most of the stuff we were selling them was riot gear, not state-of-the-art military toys.
I was pointing out someone who was “democratically elected but didn’t act democratic”.
Why is it amusing when some tinpot leader with an overweening ego goes around trying to score political points by dispensing largesse abroad while most of his fellow citizens are living in poverty?